On one audit, a manager signed off my working paper despite being unable to reconcile a £170k transaction that was missing from the bank statements.
A colleague who worked on the client previously advised requesting remittance advice, but this step was bypassed. Instead, the client incorrectly marked the procedure as complete twice without uploading any evidence. Afterward, the audit lead intervened by changing my working paper to state that the missing transaction had been seen, even though it wasn’t, and then publicly criticised me for not using American date formats—despite my correctly identifying all other transactions and thoroughly searching for the missing one. This approach undermined both the accuracy and ethics of the audit process.
On another engagement, a colleague from the Nottingham office instructed me twice to copy the prior year's work for the IT systems working paper. When he eventually reviewed it and realised the format had changed completely, he dismissed the need for accuracy by saying, "It doesn’t matter what you put—no one understands it anyway, so just get it done." This attitude further highlights the disregard for quality and proper audit procedure.
Additionally, there was a complete lack of support regarding reasonable adjustments. Before starting, I had a conversation with HR about accommodations for being autistic, but none were put in place. Five months into my employment, I overheard senior managers discussing another autistic colleague who was being let go for failing an accounting exam. Their conversation revealed they were aware this could have been an issue at recruitment, yet there was no mention of support or adjustments to help that colleague succeed. This was an inappropriate and insensitive conversation to have in an open office, and it upset me deeply. It also reinforced my concerns about how neurodiverse employees are being treated at Mazars.
